3. Discussion
Before highlighting the main results, it might be helpful to reemphasize that following the tradition of pilot RCTs this study was not powered to obtain significant effects (Lee et al., 2014). The findings confirm that the Memory Support Intervention can reliably manipulate memory support. Indeed, the total amount of memory support used and number of types of memory support were significantly higher in the CTþMemory Support group compared to the CT-as-usual group and the effect sizes were large. The average dose of memory support in a trial-quality standard 50- min CT session was 8e9 units, relative to an average dose of 18e19 units when the Memory Support Intervention is added. An inspection of the mean values provides some encouragement that patients who receive memory support recall more treatment points at posttreatment compared with those who do not receive memory support. The Cohen's d effect size group difference was in the small to medium range, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Taken together, these findings are consistent with prior demonstrations that memory support can improve recall (Almkvist et al., 2010; Bamidis et al., 2014; Bunce, 2003). At 6- month follow-up, although the mean values are in the predicted direction, there was a notable drop-off in patient memory for treatment compared with the posttreatment assessment. Perhaps booster memory support is needed to ensure that gains are maintained.